Talk:1940 British war cabinet crisis/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jarry1250 (talk · contribs) 18:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for the opportunity to review this article.

Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 23, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Punctation, spelling and grammar are good. However, as discussed in more detail below, the article relies heavily on primary sources. A great deal of effort has clearly gone into pulling out relevant snippets of info from these sources. However, further work is needed to ensure clarity and (particularly) brevity -- more work than would be required in the context of a secondary source. The current draft is very long, and often repetitive. What could be summarised as, e.g., "So-and-so agreed." often takes up multiple sentences. This added length obscures otherwise very useful material from secondary sources. In a few places I have removed material which could be considered speculative.
 * 2. Verifiable?: This is the criterion which is the most problematic in the context of this article. As Nick-D noted in his comments on a previous version of the article, "The article is much too reliant on primary sources as references. Given that there's a large and high quality secondary literature on this topic, there should be little need to cite primary sources." This remains the case IMHO, with whole paragraphs seemingly cited directly to Cabinet minutes (which may or may not be reliable). The high number of such citations also risks any synthesis constituting original research. A significant change of approach (or at least the inclusion of many more citations to secondary sources) is warranted in my view.
 * Referencing style is good and while I do not have access to all the sources cited, the ones I do have seem to tally up (though I did notice one quotation which was slightly different in the secondary source cited).
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: The article include a large amount of interesting and relevant content. However, it suffers from a very high ratio of chronological material to analysis. What is the significance of these events? How do the arguments advanced by contemporaries hold up with what we know now? Additional content answering these questions would help the reader put the events described in context and understand their impact. There is some of this analysis included but it is mixed-in among the extensive chronology. The article would benefit from having a shorter chronology section (which could include some careful citations to primary sources), followed by an analysis or assessment section citing only secondary sources.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: The written style, based on paraphrasing of primary sources, lends itself to a non-NPOV perspective where the implication is that the writer agrees with the source material being paraphrased. For example, a reference to "defeatists" is left in, but not quoted. Some secondary sources are given a similar treatment, e.g.  "There is a legend, as Hastings says, of a united Great Britain" or "In May 1940, Churchill understood that". I anticipate that this could be remedied relatively easily by someone with access to all the various sources cited.
 * 5. Stable?:
 * 6. Images?: The article is supported by a good number of relevant images (predominantly portraits), and most have a credible licence included. However, File:Giuseppe Bastianini in uniforme.jpg and File:SirDudleyPound.jpg do not include US copyright tags. In addition, File:DUNKIRK1940.jpg arguably fails WP:FUP because it lacks contextual significance in the context of this particular article. Finally, a large number of the captions are very brief and fail WP:CAPTION as they do not provide sufficient context for their inclusion.

While the problems under points 4, 6 and even 1 could be fixed relatively straightforwardly, it is my belief that points 2 and 3 will take considerable work. For that reason, I am choosing the fail the article, rather than leave it on hold for a prolongued period.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 18:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry I haven't replied sooner but I've been unavailable of late. Thank you for doing this review and for your edits which have improved the article. You are right about the primary sources which are excessive as the article stands but there was a real need for the article to be rewritten (see above) and, as the whole subject hinges on cabinet discussion, I decided to build a full picture based on the cabinet papers before seeking to narrow things down to what is in the secondary sources. One of the problems is that the secondary sources essentially provide overviews, some with more detail than others, and I had a worry that much of importance in the cabinet papers could have been overlooked, misinterpreted or understated.
 * I would like to pick this subject up again in due course and I will certainly take full account of your feedback which is most useful. Thanks very much and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)